Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 256 posts

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#181

Post by arp242 »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #157
arp242 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think "offensive" and "defamatory" are really the same thing though. If I say "seaish is an asshole" then that's not very nice, but ... you know, I'm allowed to have that opinion for whatever reason ("everyone with two s's in their username is an asshole!") But if I say "seaish is a pedophile and went to Asia for rentboys" then that's quite another thing (and these were among the claims that were made). Not t…

I think that, while its clear it is an example, it would be preferable to use "XXX is a paedophile" as the example text than the parents username. It would come off as less aggressive and less directed at the parent, which with such an accusation, even as an example, is rather jarring.

I don't really see the problem to be honest? I don't see how it's aggressive? (and it's too late to edit it now anyway, so not all that much I can do about it now anyway).

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#182

Post by GavinMcG »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #166
robertlagrant wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we know the difference between damages and settling.

It's not clear to me why we can't settle to pay damages. If it was "settle to pay for damages" would that make it okay? How about "settle to pay for the damages caused?" I love being pedantic as much as the next guy, but the government doesn't get to define what words mean.

Yes, both of those would correct the default interpretation of the term. For one thing, damages as something paid for isn't the same as damages paid. You pay money, you don't pay for money. On the other hand, if you pay for the consequences of your actions, that's different than "paying [read: suffering] the consequences."

Where did government defining things come into play? That seems to be a strawman you constructed:

> websites do not have to use the legal definitions of words

No, they don't. They're still misleading if they use words misleadingly.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#183

Post by jeremysalwen »

perihelions wrote: post #103

The title isn't a reasonable one: the very prejudicial descriptor 'troll' is language from lawyers from one side of a legal dispute. The BBC isn't credibly a neutral arbiter, because the litigant is one of their presenters. This is not taking any position on the underlying dispute (which is apparently about Northern Ireland politics [0]), nor is it a criticism of or specific to the BBC. [0] This Reddit discussion (pr…

Pretty shocking that for all the discussion of this news article, yours is the only comment that looked into the actual "defamatory claims", and it seems the only one we have access to... was factually true (but heavily editorialized). Incredible how the narrative can get swayed so easily on the basis of no evidence, or in contradiction to the evidence.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#184

Post by vl »

AQuantized wrote: post #177
vl wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Essentially it's a piece curved out of a country where descendants of occupants exceed in number native population. Of course it's occupied for so long that now it's "their own", still doesn't change the fact that it was occupied and not treated equally historically in the first place.

Not to be pedantic, but isn't that true of almost any place if you go back far enough? There's a reason those with 'British' ancestry are called Anglo-Saxons; The Angles (French) and Saxons (Germans) that conquered and occupied the land of the Celts eventually become the de facto inhabitants. Of course the Celts themselves didn't evolve there, but also dominated pre-Celtic peoples.

Ireland's situation is a bit unique in that it was occupied for many hundreds of years and not really integrated. Usually occupations are either shorter, or integration happens. Of course occupants and occupees being on the islands didn't help.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#185

Post by dec0dedab0de »

GavinMcG wrote: post #182
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me why we can't settle to pay damages. If it was "settle to pay for damages" would that make it okay? How about "settle to pay for the damages caused?" I love being pedantic as much as the next guy, but the government doesn't get to define what words mean.

Yes, both of those would correct the default interpretation of the term. For one thing, damages as something paid for isn't the same as damages paid . You pay money, you don't pay for money. On the other hand, if you pay for the consequences of your actions, that's different than " paying [read: suffering] the consequences." Where did government defining things come into play? That seems to be a strawman you construc…

Just before the part you quoted I said I agreed it was misleading. All I'm saying is that the word damages doesn't have to match the legal definition.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#186

Post by shellac »

GavinMcG wrote: post #52
barbegal wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most damages are settled out of court. Going to court is more expensive so lawyers on both sides try to avoid this.

Damages is a legal term of art that implies a finding of fault in a judicial proceeding and a corresponding award by the court/arbitrator/etc. This is not that: no fault/guilt need be admitted (though it was here). It's just a contract to accept a certain amount of money and in exchange to not proceed with a lawsuit.

If you look up the many settlements made by newspapers in the UK concerning hacking phones etc you will see 'damages'. To give one example:

"Rather than fight the claims against the Sun in court, when they would have been set out in more detail in front of a judge, Murdoch’s company has instead agreed to pay substantial damages to settle the case. "

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jun/10/sun-publisher-...

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#187

Post by 45ure »

shkkmo wrote: post #127
45ure wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Defamation is a great way for those with money to silence dissent and avoid any consequences. Your comment seems to fit the profile of Brewdog, a UK based 'craft brewery'. They are known for deliberately courting controversy. The egregious examples include frivolous claims on trademarks, misogyny, bullying, harassment, amongst toe-curling and churlish behaviour, when they appeared on a BBC programme Who's The Boss .…

This comment seems entirely unrelated to what it is responging to... You seem to be accusing the person you are responding to of being Brewdog? Or were you trying to say Brewdog uses defamation to silence criticism of their marketing tactics? Or are you trying to promote Brewdog by publicising their deliberate controversies? I just can't figure it out.

>You seem to be accusing the person you are responding to of being Brewdog? Or are you trying to promote Brewdog by publicising their deliberate controversies?

There is no such implication on both counts. I am flabbergasted by how you have arrived at your conclusion.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#188

Post by InitialLastName »

Manuel_D wrote: post #168
InitialLastName wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The scale of content being posted on social media is such that this liability makes running a social media platform effectively impossible. All user generated content would have to be manually reviewed before being posted. This would be prohibitively expensive. Since when is "operating responsibly would be too expensive" an excuse that we allow businesses to use to avoid any responsibility for the damage they cause…

It's not just a question if expenses but also responsibility. If I post a post-it note on my schools bulletin board making defamatory statements who is at fault? Me? Or the school, because it was their bulletin board?

The first time, it's your responsibility.

If you kept doing it but the school knew you were doing it and not only left it up, but put copies on bulletin boards across their entire global network, and never asked you to stop, maybe they have to take some responsibility.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#189

Post by mcguire »

Gupie wrote: post #135
woah wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

England is occupying part of Ireland. I have no personal opinion about this, or links to Ireland, but it seems pretty obvious to anyone looking at it from the outside.

They would be wrong then. The great majority of unionist are of Scottish descent and have been in Norther Ireland from the 1600s. FYI the term "unionist" refers to those in NI who want the union with Britain to be maintained, not as someone looking in from outside would assume those who want a union with Southern Ireland. Those are "nationalists".

"Great majority"? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Northern_Ireland#V....

"...have been in Norther Ireland from the 1600s."

Not that it matters to anyone, but the Plantation of Ulster would likely be considered a war crime under article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#190

Post by dang »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #28

It seems misleading for the headline to talk about "damages" when the case settled. "Damages" to me suggests court-ordered compensation.

Ok, we've taken damages out of the title above.

Since this is mostly just a terminological issue, I've detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27700866.

Post reply on HN